"Women blinded to risks of infertility"

Women blinded to risks of infertility

August 30, 2007


By Robert Stacy McCain - Colleges are failing to educate young women
about reproductive risks that endanger their chances of ever bearing
children, Dr. Miriam Grossman says.

Most young women have "no idea how much fertility declines with age,"
said Dr. Grossman, a psychiatrist and counselor at the University of
California at Los Angeles.

Campus health centers and women's studies programs have encouraged an
"ignorance of basic female biology," she said in a presentation this
week at the National Press Club sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce
Policy Institute (CBLPI).

"There is so much focus on preventing pregnancy ... a vital truth is
being lost," Dr. Grossman said, citing medical studies about age-
related infertility, especially the sharp decline in women's fertility
after age 30. Young women are being "lulled into a false sense of
security" about these risks, she said, even as "the offices of
fertility clinics are full" of women in their 30s desperately hoping
to conceive.

News accounts about celebrities who give birth in their 40s and
coverage of treatments such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have
created "unrealistic expectations" about delayed motherhood, Dr.
Grossman said. In fact, the success rate for IVF at age 39 is only 8
percent, she said.

While feminists and pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood
emphasize the importance of "complete and accurate information" in sex
education, Dr. Grossman blames "politically correct thinking" for the
failure to inform young women about "the risks of delaying parenthood
indefinitely."

"We don't want to acknowledge that our biology is different from
men's," said Dr. Grossman, who recently became a senior fellow at
CBLPI, a conservative women's organization. She is author of
"Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness
in Her Profession Endangers Every Student."

The book was published anonymously last year, Dr. Grossman said,
because the very environment the book described meant it might hurt
her career at UCLA. The book has been reissued in paperback with her
name on the cover.

The institute will co-sponsor speaking appearances by Dr. Grossman at
colleges nationwide, said Jessica Cantelon, a spokeswoman for the
organization.

Mike wrote:
Women blinded to risks of infertility

August 30, 2007


By Robert Stacy McCain - Colleges are failing to educate young women
about reproductive risks that endanger their chances of ever bearing
children, Dr. Miriam Grossman says.

Most young women have "no idea how much fertility declines with age,"
said Dr. Grossman, a psychiatrist and counselor at the University of
California at Los Angeles.

Campus health centers and women's studies programs have encouraged an
"ignorance of basic female biology," she said in a presentation this
week at the National Press Club sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce
Policy Institute (CBLPI).

"There is so much focus on preventing pregnancy ... a vital truth is
being lost," Dr. Grossman said, citing medical studies about age-
related infertility, especially the sharp decline in women's fertility
after age 30. Young women are being "lulled into a false sense of
security" about these risks, she said, even as "the offices of
fertility clinics are full" of women in their 30s desperately hoping
to conceive.

What evidence does she present for this? The idea that women have no
idea how much fertility declines with age and that political correctness
is stopping anyone from telling them, I mean (though I'm also interested
in evidence for the claim that fertility declines after 30, since 35 was
the age I'd always heard). I see this claim made regularly, and I've
yet to see any of the people who make it present any actual figures on
the subject.

Seems like every year or so, there's some big article on this topic
somewhere in the popular press, with exactly the same claim getting made
- that women just don't know about the fact that they'll get less
fertile with age and this is leading them to postpone childbearing for
too long under the mistaken belief that they've got loads of time. But
none of these articles ever contain any surveys or statistics on how
many women actually do believe this or are using this false belief as a
major factor in their decisions over whether to have children. I can't
help thinking that surely any issue that's having articles written about
it this often must be one that's actually quite widely known.

As far as political correctness goes, I would have thought the most
likely reason why nobody bothers to give college students routine
lectures on declining fertility is an "in other news, sky found to be
blue" attitude. I mean, the term 'biological clock' is a cliché, for
goodness' sake. I'm not sure at what point the idea of declining
fertility supposedly turned into such a closely guarded secret.

So, if Grossman actually has any hard evidence on the proportion of
women who are figuring this erroneous belief into decisions about the
stage of their life at which they have children, I'd love to see it.
Not saying that there's nobody out there making this mistake - I'm just
not convinced that it's the kind of huge widespread problem people seem
to be convinced it is.

(Incidentally, I looked up the reviews of her book on Amazon, and I'm
rather dubious about the way in which she uses statistics - that is, if
she really did claim, as one reviewer says, that 20% of women experience
something on the level of post-traumatic stress syndrome post-abortion.
That doesn't match at all with what I've read, and this is an area in
which I've had a look at the literature. But, in fairness, this may
have been the reviewer's mistake, rather than hers.)


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

On Sep 1, 12:18 pm, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Mike wrote:
Women blinded to risks of infertility

August 30, 2007

By Robert Stacy McCain - Colleges are failing to educate young women
about reproductive risks that endanger their chances of ever bearing
children, Dr. Miriam Grossman says.

Most young women have "no idea how much fertility declines with age,"
said Dr. Grossman, a psychiatrist and counselor at the University of
California at Los Angeles.

Campus health centers and women's studies programs have encouraged an
"ignorance of basic female biology," she said in a presentation this
week at the National Press Club sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce
Policy Institute (CBLPI).

"There is so much focus on preventing pregnancy ... a vital truth is
being lost," Dr. Grossman said, citing medical studies about age-
related infertility, especially the sharp decline in women's fertility
after age 30. Young women are being "lulled into a false sense of
security" about these risks, she said, even as "the offices of
fertility clinics are full" of women in their 30s desperately hoping
to conceive.

What evidence does she present for this? The idea that women have no
idea how much fertility declines with age and that political correctness
is stopping anyone from telling them, I mean (though I'm also interested
in evidence for the claim that fertility declines after 30, since 35 was
the age I'd always heard). I see this claim made regularly, and I've
yet to see any of the people who make it present any actual figures on
the subject.


I think that this was way too negative on women's chances of having a
baby as they age. I pulled out my "The Art of Natural Family
Planning" by John and Shelia Kippley. It includes fertility data
published by Louis Henry in 1961. This comes from populations where
there was little or no family planning. The curves from the 3
populations listed were similar, with birth rates higher in each
century. The most recent population listed is Hutterites, marriages
1921-1930. In this population, births per year per thousand women
we

Age 20-24 550
Age 25-29 502
Age 30-34 447
Age 35-39 406
Age 40-44 222
Age 45-49 61

Based on this, I don't see a sharp decline beginning until the later
30s.
Even with the sharp decline beginning then, it doesn't mean that a
high percentage of women who could have had a baby in their 20s will
be unable to have a baby in their late 30s.

One might argue that since most women tend to have a somewhat preset
number of years of fertility that as the age of menarche is going
down, the age of fertility decline also may be going down. A woman
who began ovulating at age 7 may be less likely to become pregnant
naturally in her 40s than a woman who began ovulating at 17. Since a
woman's total years of fertility is likely to follow that of her
mother, it could make sense for a woman to also take that into
consideration.

There is no statistical evidence in this, but living in an academic
community, I know many women who have had their first baby at age 40
or older without fertility treatment. When I was pregnant with my
first, half the women in my prenatal exercise class were over 40.
Generally, these women didn't assume that they would be able to become
pregnant. There are also quite a few unexpected pregnancies in the
early 40s among women who have assumed that their fertility has
declined more than it really has. I know other women that waited too
long and didn't become pregnant. They knew the risks and, while
disappointed, didn't seem shocked by this.

--Betsy

Oh pfffft.

The deciding factor for when to have kids isn't just driven by age.
Not all of us are lucky enough to marry or have the financial
stability to take on responsible parenthood in the theoretical primo
years. To take on the task, you need a stable relationship and enough
money to offer the child some stability and opportunities. If I'd had
those same three kids in my 20's, I'd have been a single mom and not
able to make ends meet. Getting the kids into the world is easy, its
what happens after that is harder.

I didn't marry until I was 31 - met him when I was 30. Kids born at
34, 37 and 41, all just fine thanks. And then we have my great
grandma, Lizzie Brymner White who had her first kid at the advanced
age of 28 back in 1904, and her last (of 10 kids in total) in 1922
when she was 46, all just fine also, and 9 of them born when she was
over 30.

I don't buy that there is a massive age driven fertility crisis for
today's women, particularly since most want relatively small families
of 1-3 or so (in my kids Toronto schools, the biggest biological
family I've run into had 4 kids - vs. blended families). I think a lot
of young women might be naive about diseases and the risks of multiple
partners - now that can damage your fertility while you aren't paying
attention.

M

wrote:

I don't buy that there is a massive age driven fertility crisis for
today's women, particularly since most want relatively small families
of 1-3 or so

I don't think there is, either. However, it certainly
does affect a percentage of women (i.e., they could have gotten
pregnant if they tried earlier, but *their* fertility fell off
before they tried, and so they're having difficulty). No doubt,
if you are one of the unlucky ones, you wish like heck that you'd
found a way to have children earlier (assuming that would have
made it easier), but hindsight is always 20/20. *Most* women
can delay somewhat without serious consequences, especially if
they're not wanting a large family, but some can't. Life is
like that. There are always tradeoffs, and we all do the best
we can without having the magic crystal ball. I'm sure there
are some women who run into age-related fertility problems who
*could* have made different choices earlier in their lives.
They made a bet and they lost. Some perhaps didn't do their
homework before placing that bet and did assume that they'd
be just as fertile at 40 as at 25, but I suspect most women
either couldn't reasonably have had children earlier or at least
had an idea what they were risking by waiting.

Best wishes,
Ericka